It was a unique event in the Netherlands: the high-profile trial of MP Geert Wilders, much of which was televised. Now an advisory committee has advocated rolling the cameras more often. The town of Zwolle will soon be home to the first Dutch courtroom where TV cameras are part of the furniture. But judges have more than a few objections to “trial by television”.

“Today, your honour, I am acting in the defence of a dissident. His name is Geert Wilders. Who would have thought this possible in 2010, in the Netherlands.”

Words spoken by lawyer Bram Moszkowicz, acting as defence counsel for politician Geert Wilders in a trial that had the nation in an uproar. Viewers were able to tune in and hear them live on television. When major public interests are at stake, there can be good reason for broadcasting a trial on television. However, the advisory committee reporting on the use of cameras in court is keen to point out that not all trials lend themselves to being broadcast live and in full. In such cases, it might be an option to only broadcast certain parts of a trial or to use a 30-minute delay so that any sensitive sections can be edited out.

Security and privacy
Judge Katja Mans, a member of the advisory committee, talks about the issues at stake when using cameras in court.

“As a judge, you have a responsibility to the people involved in a trial: those actually taking part but also people such as the victims, who are not an official party in the legal proceedings. Their security and privacy need to be protected. And as the judge in a case, you always have to consider whether you are in a position to do your job properly. The hearing must proceed in such a way that you are able to deal with the facts of the case as thoroughly as possible. A judge has to bear all this in mind when deciding the level of openness that can be permitted.”

The committee also argues in favour of providing more information about how things work during a trial. Certain procedures are difficult for the uninitiated to make sense of.

“The more you broadcast, the more explanation is required. Most TV viewers in the Netherlands are used to watching American court dramas and are not really familiar with the ins and outs of our own legal system. So some aspects of a court case can be difficult for them to understand. One of our recommendations, therefore, is to provide some kind of commentary that makes it easy for the viewer to follow what is happening.”

People and power
Publicist and philosopher Hans Schnitzler is an outspoken opponent of TV cameras in the courtroom. He does not believe that trust in the legal system will be boosted by a higher media profile. In his view, the crisis of authority affecting judges at present goes much deeper. Schnitzler characterises it as a symptom of the gulf between the people and the powers that be. He is also concerned that the TV audience could be directly influenced by the lawyers in a trial.

“I think that defence lawyers in a criminal case – and especially the top lawyers in the Netherlands – are perfectly capable of playing on the audience’s sympathies and influencing public opinion without appealing directly to the viewer. The Wilders trial is a case in point. As soon as it threatens to turn into a media spectacle, I believe that it has become self-defeating.”

Half measure
Schnitzler is not convinced by the committee’s recommendation that there should be a commentary to explain what is happening in a televised court case. For him that would only be a half measure. “If we’re going down that route, it would also be interesting to see the judges’ deliberations so that we can see the evidence on which they base their decisions.”

(dd/rk)